Every aspiring writer should read terrible books (2022) [video]

For an infinite treasure trove of mediocrity (and the odd surprise), there's fanfiction archives like AO3 (https://archiveofourown.org/).

As I said: it is/feels like a sketch. The prose (often) reads like notes which should be rewritten, and filled with depth, and life. Also the story is bad, there is too much "deus ex machina". Also no characters one can relate to. Sounds like you read a totally different book than me :P.

If I had read it and the Dune without knowing their authors, I could not have told them they were written by the same person. Especially not that it was written after the Dune, where he has proved he can write well.

The best way to read terrible fiction is to join a critique group and read other amateurs. This is good because you can run across different levels of writers:

* People who have no business writing and have no idea what they're doing. These are not going to give you much, which is why you want to keep to groups that have some gatekeeping.

* Beginners who are not that talented but can develop skill. These people are good because you can see what it looks like to go from nothing to something, even if that something isn't great

* Untalented people who are workhorses and can do the job: these people are probably the most valuable "bad writers"

* Talented people who suck. These people are also amazing because you can see the power of skill as it develops

* Talented people who are very good. (These won't be in your group)

But really all this about "analyze why the book sucks" is a red herring. What is far more instructive is understanding why something that you don't like is appealing. If you can find what works in something you don't like, it's a lot more likely that you'll be able to understand that technique.

Best selling thrillers with bad dialog and paper characters? Great. That means you can focus on the pacing and plot and understand why the book works despite its obvious flaws. That's harder though because it isn't just stroking your own ego by saying "aw I could do that"

One of the worst, and best reading experiences I get is anything long-form Frédéric Beigbeder. It's all over the place, always too much, showing off (both in style, dialogues, plots...), inconsistent, I find myself shaking my head or sighing most of the book, every damn time.

And then, the bastard manages to turn his stories around and do something often good, sometimes great of it. Not sure whether it's on purpose or he's just a short-story stretching too much... But if you read most of it, it's very very bad. But add the endings or the small moments of grace and suddenly it's great. Ugh.

There is a decent series by Rowan Atkinson on how to build something humorous. For many standup's they basically slowly show after show 'write' their stories. By testing what is good or bad in them and discarding what does not work and keeping what does. I have been watching Josh Wolf on youtube. Not sure he meant to do it. But he tells one joke a few times in successive videos. But each time the story is more funny the newer the video it is. You can tell he is revising the joke and finding where to spice it up.

Do not remember which stand up I heard it from. Many usually try their new material at 2am. If you can not get the people who are decently drunk to laugh it probably is not a good joke.